IOWA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



House

Republican

Newsletter

March 28, 2007

[pic]

Appropriations

Governor Releases Salary Bill –

State Employee Unions are Big Winners

On Monday, March 26, the Governor released his first salary bill, which was filed as House Study Bill 297. The bill funds the first year of the new two-year Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) as well as salary increases for the Board of Regents and the Judicial branch. As was the case with the Vilsack Administration, the state employee unions did very well at the negotiating table.

The Executive branch bargains primarily with three unions: AFSCME (by far the largest representative of state employees), SPOC (law enforcement union) and IUP (university professors union).

AFSCME settled for a 3 percent cost of living adjustment (COLA) and an automatic 4.5 percent step increase for both FY 08 and FY 09. SPOC settled for a 2 percent COLA and 3.5 percent step increase but also received an automatic 6.5 percent increase for all employees who are “capped out” in their pay range. IUP settled for a 1 percent COLA in FY 08, a 3 percent COLA in FY 09 and a 4.5 percent step increase. IUP also received a 1.45 percent increase for the capped out employees.

The Courts settled with the unions on a 2 percent COLA and 4.5 percent step increase. Non-contract state employees will receive a 3 percent COLA and a 4.5 percent step increase for both years.

The Governor recommends spending $107.2 million for state employee salary increases. Of this amount, $40.9 million goes to the Board of Regents, $7.4 million goes to the Courts and $58.9 million goes to the rest of state government. The Governor claims this is “full-funding” of the CBAs.

The Senate is planning on combining the Salary bill with the Standing appropriations bill and this bill is expected to be one of the last bills that is debated this session. If the $107 million is approved, it will mean the largest increase in the budget this year will be for state employee salaries, not for teachers, health care or economic development.

That is a telling statistic and shows that the number one priority of the majority party is not one of the things they campaigned on but rather rewarding the labor unions for the help they gave in the election.

(Contact: Lon Anderson, 1-5184)

Agriculture

Livestock Regulatory Measure Sent to Ag Panel

Two weeks after House Study Bill 267 was amended and passed by the House Environmental Protection Committee on Thursday, March 8, by a partisan 12-9 vote, the bill was finally reintroduced on Thursday, March 22 as committee bill House File 873 and assigned to the House Agriculture Committee for its consideration. House File 873 is a measure principally sponsored by liberal House Democrats. While it is advertised as a measure to enhance environmental regulations applicable to swine confinement animal feeding operations, it is in fact a measure that seems principally designed to strip the ability of farmland owners to expand and update livestock facilities. It prevents Iowa farms and rural communities from more fully exploiting the ongoing boom in renewable fuels and from creating additional jobs to retain and attract young Iowans back to rural Iowa.

HF 873 proposes to sharply increase air quality distance separations (+40% to 122%) that confinement animal feeding operations must comply with in order to be built or expanded, especially near four new types of “benefited object/location”. The four new types of benefited object/location proposed are:

(1) a “qualified city”, which is defined as a city that has adopted a comprehensive plan;

(2) a “planned residential housing development’, which means a parcel of land which has been plotted and recorded with a county recorder under Code section 335.10;

(3) a “tourism destination”, which is a portion of real estate that has unique archaeological, cultural, historical, recreational, scenic, or scientific significance that tends to attract the visiting public;

(4) a “swine gestating-to-farrowing operation structure”, which is an animal feeding operation of at least fifty sows and which is devoted to swine production phases used for reproduction.

These new distances are referred by the bill as “standard minimum distances” to reflect that the measure also proposes an alternative air quality separation distance that can be approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This new DNR approval is based on an assessment made using Iowa State University’s Community Based Odor Assessment Report (CBOAR), that analyzes the probability of the odor dispersion impact that a proposed swine confinement animal feeding operation’s potential site might have on a benefited object/location.

This alternative distance separation option is qualified since the bill further provides that DNR could reject any particular CBOAR that justifies a CAFO site location closer than a standard minimum, if DNR’s professional judgment is that detrimental harm could result to a benefited object/location. The measure also creates two new distance separation requirements for CAFO structures:

• A one-mile setback to protect tourism interests that do not involve a high quality water resource

• A two-mile setback for either tourism sites involving a high quality water resource that is not a trout stream, and for qualified cities that are also designated as Iowa Great Places (currently Sioux City, Clinton, Coon Rapids, Dubuque, Fairfield, Mason City and Gutenberg, but potentially more if HF 847 is enacted).

The bill would require a CAFO of any size to meet distance separation requirements. This includes small dairies and 4-H and FFA livestock projects that are kept confined in buildings where doors or gates are usually kept closed. The bill eliminates the existing small animal feeding operation exception, which would then subject these dairies and projects to a setback of 1,320 feet.

HF 873 also proposes to tweak some of the existing water quality setbacks, though not as severely as originally introduced in HSB 267. This scaling back of regulatory expansion came after DNR told the HSB 267 subcommittee that some existing water quality distance separations have never been involved in a reported incident of water pollution, so the need to expand those setbacks was baseless. The department also admitted to the subcommittee its frustration with some current water quality setbacks in that they sometimes don’t reflect situations in which the protected water resource is substantially upstream and/or uphill and impossible to pollute from a proposed CAFO.

The bill as approved by the committee expands the scope of “designated wetlands” that are currently afforded a 2,500- foot setback beyond the current criteria that the wetlands must be owned by federal or state government and be designated as protected. The more expansive qualification is that the wetland must be owned by a governmental entity, which would now include any federal state, municipal or county wetland. It also slightly increased the wetland setback to 2,640 feet.

The bill makes similar small increases of distance setbacks for a CAFO structure from a “designated groundwater access point” and major water resources. This will have little impact on water quality and appears intentionally designed to eliminate the possibility that a CAFO could be built on a neighboring agricultural land parcel of a size that is common in Iowa (80 and 160 acre parcels). The legislation eliminates exceptions to both the 200-foot setback of manure application from designated areas and the 750-foot manure application setback from existing benefited objects if the manure is injected or incorporated within 24 hours. It also proposes a new manure setback for dry manure of 400 feet from a benefited object/location, and requires all liquid manure to be injected or incorporated within 24 hours. HF 873 prohibits unformed manure storage on karst terrain regardless of the depth to bedrock (current rules allow such structures if 25-foot separation is available), and it prohibits any unformed manure storage structure if it is part of a swine operation.

The bill also makes a number of changes to the CAFO permitting process. The legislation lowers the permit size threshold from 1,000 animal units, which is currently consistent with federal rules, to 500 animal units. The measure:

• Takes away county regulatory flexibility by making the Master Matrix process obligatory to the counties;

• Exempts the bill from state unfunded mandate provisions, and would allow the counties to charge up to a $100 matrix evaluation charge;

• Requires counties to hold public hearings on CAFO applications; and

• Requires the county to provide DNR with county comments and recommendation on specific CAFO permit application, and should the county fail to do so, DNR is directed to disapprove the particular CAFO permit regardless of whether it meets all requirements of the law.

HF 873 would also modify existing Matrix specifications by requiring CAFO permit applicants to answer every Matrix criterion question regardless of whether or not the applicant wanted to claim the points, and would assign negative points if the applicant failed to do so. The bill would also direct DNR to review the Master Matrix regulation and report back to the General Assembly its findings and recommendations by January 11, 2008.

HF 873, should it be enacted with most of the current provisions intact, is apt to run into some constitutional issues, as it has many instances of capricious and arbitrary distinctions between animal species and animal species manure for differing environmental regulations that are not supported by science. While former livestock regulatory legislation imposed many regulatory standards and burdens for livestock producers that previously didn’t apply to Iowa livestock farmers, it did so in a manner that retained most of the ability of a non-incorporated farmland owner to raise livestock and use manure as a fertilizer on their property if they wished to (albeit, maybe at a much smaller level for some properties or through utilizing additional technology to reduce water pollution risks and air quality and odor emissions). In contrast, HF 873 would likely disenfranchise many farmers’ ability to raise livestock and use manure as fertilizer on many farm properties because the distance separations proposed by the bill are intentionally set to exclude entire agricultural parcels.

Proponents of HF 873 frequently imply that these expanded distances are needed for health and water quality purposes, but the ongoing science is actually finding the opposite and is corroborating current state air quality and nuisance odor setbacks. Both the nearly completed DNR livestock air emission monitoring study and the odor study that was completed in March of 2006 suggest that current separation requirements are sufficient to meet air quality health concerns and minimize odor nuisance occurrences. In addition to prior CAFO regulations, the long-promised and now finally operational CAFO odor air modeling by Iowa State University is increasingly being used on voluntarily basis by a growing number of livestock producers as a planning tool to help them be the best possible neighbors when they construct new livestock facilities.

(Contact: Lew Olson, 1-3096)

Commerce

Statewide Cable Franchises – What are the Main Issues?

Over the past several years, many legislators have received volumes of correspondence from constituents asking for more options when it comes to cable television. After several attempts, there has been movement on this issue with the passage of a Senate bill making dramatic changes in the cable franchise process. As with any bill of this magnitude, parties are still fighting over the elements of the bill.

With the arrival of Senate File 554 in the House Commerce Committee, consideration has begun on one of the more technical bills before the Legislature this year. The complex nature of the subject does not limit the number of interested parties. The main proponent of the bill is the telephone industry. Opposing Senate File 554 is the League of Cities and a number of individual municipalities.

What are the issues? Here are the major areas of debate:

Who issues the cable franchise – Originally, Senate File 554 gave authority for granting statewide cable franchises to the Secretary of State’s office. In the Senate’s deliberations, this was changed to the Iowa Utilities Board. The League of Cities still objects to this because the bill creates two different ways in which cable franchises could be granted. The existing process under Iowa Code section 364.2 giving cities their current franchise power would still remain. The League also believe the requirements for the statewide franchise are lacking and seek to add more elements to the process.

Build-out requirements – One of the issues that produces the most discussion is build-out. Generally, a cable franchisee is required to build out their network to the end customers. In Senate File 554, the build-out requirements apply to a telephone company with more than 500,000 access lines and which provides service to over 50 percent of the telephone market in the state. There is one company that meets this requirement – Qwest, which is agreeable to the language.

Cities still have issues, primarily because the build-out requirements only applies to Qwest. They believe Senate File 554 should include benchmarks that would apply the build-out requirement to other statewide franchise holders. Their fear is without the language, a community that has a single cable provider with a statewide franchise and no build-out requirement could leave the community without a cable provider at some point in the future. The telephone companies do not see this as an issue.

Franchise Fee – Naturally, the issue of franchise fee revenues to the cities is a critical point of contention. Senate File 554 sets a limit of 5 percent of gross revenue for the franchise fee. What constitutes gross revenue is where the fight is, as cities would like to remove the limit and allow the amount to be negotiated with the city that service would be provided to under the statewide franchise. The telephone companies are concerned about expanding what fits within the definition, as they have seen the requirements that some cities have imposed on their existing franchisees.

During the discussion of franchise fees, the issue of satellite subscribers was also broached. At least one member of the subcommittee on Senate File 554 believes that those Iowans choosing DirecTV or Dish Network should also pay the cable franchise to their city.

Right of Way Management – The cities are asking for expanded right of way powers in those situations when the statewide cable franchisee has no history of right of way access. Proponents of the bill believe Senate File 554 already covers the situation, and any telephone company seeking to provide cable service would already have right of way agreements with the city in question.

Opt-Out for the Incumbent – One of the ways that proponents were able to secure Mediacom’s cooperation with Senate File 554 was language that allows the incumbent to opt out of their existing city franchise agreement if a competitor comes into the market under a statewide franchise. The opt-out would allow the incumbent to negotiate a new agreement with the city so that they would not be at a competitive disadvantage with their statewide franchise competitor. The cities oppose this and are asking that the bill include language that requires incumbent franchisees to fulfill the terms of their agreement before seeking adjustments.

PEG Channels and Support for Government Buildings – Currently, cities are able to negotiate the inclusion of public access and government channels on their cable system. Many times, the franchisee is also required to provide additional support to this by providing production equipment and other financial support to these channels. Also, cities require that government buildings, schools, libraries, and other facilities be connected as part of the agreement. They fear that with a statewide franchise system, the provision of cable to these facilities would be lost, as well as providing network access for their channels.

The telephone companies believe that access will be provided to the local channels by any franchisee. They are concerned that cities will be able to include requirements for production facilities and other related costs on the new franchisee. Their desire is that these costs be included in the franchise fee.

These are several of the many issues where there is contention between the cities and telephone providers. At this point, there is no timetable for action on the bill. Additional subcommittee meetings have been scheduled.

(Contact: Brad Trow, 1-3471)

Economic Growth

The Power Fund……Powering Through…….

What do HF 498 and HF 878 (formally HF 509) have in common? They both have their sights set on being the voice of the Iowa Power Fund. Each bill offers up a little something different to what will eventually be the new Governor’s “much touted” and “campaigned on” Iowa Power Fund. The Senate is also pushing their own version of the Iowa Power Fund, namely SF 500, which is currently in the Senate Appropriations committee.

The subcommittee for HF 498 has been broken down into further subcommittees focusing on Agriculture, Biorefineries/Wind and Energy Efficiency, and have been meeting every morning since assigned.

Most important is that the Senate version is the only version that includes the $25 million that is required to institute the Iowa Power Fund. The original version of HF 498 included the appropriation but with adoption of the strike after amendment, there is no appropriation mentioned in either of the House versions.

HF 498 – currently is operating off of a strike after amendment (House Amendment 1106) which strikes all of the original HF 498 and redesigns it with language that had been worked around in the Commerce Committee, prior to being sent to the Economic Growth Committee. In short, the amendment establishes the following:

• Sets the Act’s purpose, which is to enhance the quality of life of Iowa citizens by creating self-sufficient sources of alternative and renewable energy and creating jobs.

• Creates an Iowa Energy Independence Office as an arm of the Governor’s office that would coordinate all projects, studies and reports.

• Create an Iowa Energy Independence Plan to be developed by the Iowa Energy Independence Office that would set out how the state is to accomplish these goals.

• Sets up a Iowa Energy Independence Advisory Council, which will be a board made up of members from the utilities and energy boards, Farm Bureau, rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, the Office of the Consumer Advocate and four other members who are proven to have expertise in renewable energy.

• Requires all new public construction be in compliance with energy efficient standards.

• Requires all new passenger vehicles purchased by the council to use alternative fuels.

• Creates an Iowa Power Fund to further the goals of the Iowa Energy Independence Office and Advisory Council.

• Sets out energy conservation requirements for all construction commenced after July 1, 2007.

• Requires energy efficiency implementations for all gas and electric utilities.

HF 878 (formally HF 509) – Was voted out of the Economic Growth Committee and is currently in Ways and Means. Parts of this bill will most likely end up in HF 498.

Currently, HF 878 does the following:

• Creates a Biodiesel Infrastructure Program for private use motor fuel sites to improve a site where motor fuel is used for storing or dispensing.

• Creates biomass research and development initiatives.

• Creates an Innovation Project for the processing of Feedstock into Ethanol (Biofuels) which will develop methods and technologies use to increase ethanol production.

• Creates an Innovation Project for the Sustainable Production of Crops used as an Ethanol Feedstock which will assist biorefineries processing grain into ethanol by increasing the amount of distillers to use.

• A Workforce Project for Biorefinery Industry Training is established to train individuals to obtain full time employment in biorefinery industry.

• Creates an Innovation Project for Commercialization of Advanced Biorefinery Technology, which is to provide for the installation of advanced technology at a biorefinery in order to maximize processing.

• Creates a Renewable Energy Physical Infrastructure Financial Assistance Program to provide financial assistance for renewable energy physical infrastructure development in this state and establishes a fund to assist this program.

• Establishes the Office of Renewable Energy, including a director.

• Establishes an Iowa Power Fund Partnership Council which include the Utilities Board, the directors of DED and DNR, and six members appointed by the Governor and establishes the Iowa Power Fund.

The Economic Growth Committee meets only one time this week, on Thursday, March 29.

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Education

Talking Points – Preschool Bill

Republican Message: “We support quality, affordable preschool.” HF 877 addresses just one of many early childhood needs, forks over $100 million in taxpayer dollars, and parents still pay the same.

Message 1: HF 877 won’t lower parents’ cost one dime

• Clear up the BIG Misconception: Parents think they won’t have to for pay day care or preschool anymore.

1. “Universal” does not mean FREE.

2. “Universal” means every 4 year-old can get 10 hours of universal access to a four-year degreed teacher each week..

3. PARENTS STILL PAY THE SAME.

4. Get Real: Do you really think providers are going to lower their rates just because they get 10 hours of preschool instruction paid for by the school district?

Message 2: HF 877 abandons a balanced approach to early childhood

A. HF 877 ignores the bipartisan work of the 2005-2006 Legislature.

• Republicans: The last General Assembly provided a NEW $50 million in parent tax credits, preschool tuition assistance, professional development for all early childhood professional, increased child care eligibility and child care reimbursement.

• Democrats: This Democrat-controlled legislature wants to spend $100 million on ONE narrow aspect of early childhood:

$100 million in tax dollars = Every 4 year-old in this state gets 10 hours of instruction each week

B. HF 877 puts public education in the early childhood driver seat. HF 877 pushes community empowerment and private providers to the side. Stay-at-home parents get nothing.

1. The Department of Education – not the Legislature - writes rules in seven critical areas including program standards, teacher-to-child ratios and transportation. The DE also says who gets the money.

2. Public school districts call the shots on when and where the 10 hours of instruction happens. They are the only permitted fiscal agent.

3. Private providers have to play “Captain, May I?”. If private providers want the 10 hours of instruction, they have to “Captain, May I?” to the school district. This impacts 1,500 licensed day care centers and 6,000 registered child care providers.

Message 3: HF 877 funds preschool at the expense of K-12

1. HF 877 lets school districts start up a preschool using any and all school district funds. The district can use property tax levies, state school aid formula money, allowable growth, even federal school nutrition funds to start up a preschool.

2. School districts don’t even have to account for diverting the funds to preschool.

3. Private providers suddenly become the financial underdogs.

4. Wait a minute! Anything can go for preschool? Yep. Teacher comp money can pay for preschool teachers. State general aid can pay to transport the preschooler on a school bus. You name it. Have the Democrats forgotten about the taxpayer, about improving 4th grade reading scores, or making high school more relevant?

5. K-12 has money to spare? That’s big news!

Message 4: HF 877 abandons private providers

1. 1,500 DHS-licensed day care centers and 6,000 registered day care providers have to meet DE dictated standards in order to get 10 hours of instruction or they sit out.

2. Private providers won’t get a dime to help them meet the HF 877 program standards.

3. Private preschool teachers may have to step aside. Teachers with AA degrees in early childhood from their community college can’t teach under HF 877. This bill requires teachers to have a four-year degree.

4. Private providers lose their autonomy. A “teacher” must be a school district employee or “under contract” with the school district.

Teacher Compensation Moves to House Appropriations

By the time you go home this weekend, Senate File 277 might be out of the House Appropriations Committee and on the House calendar. As passed by the House Education Committee, it does the following;

• Subjects market-factor dollars to collective bargaining . No longer an exclusive right of management.

• Subjects professional development to a quasi-collective bargaining process. No longer an exclusive right of management.

o New “Local Teacher Quality Committee” recommends how professional development funds should be used and who gets them.

o The problem is that the committee looks just like a collective bargaining process…even number of teachers and management. Membership is approved by the union and management. A House Education Committee amendment allows for an existing committee but the make-up must still be approved by the union and management.

• Mandates that school districts employ a qualified guidance counselor and school nurse.  A one-year, one-time only waiver is provided. Counselors are included in the salary portion but nurses are not.

o The 2006 Teacher Quality bill mandated teacher librarians, thanks to Christie Vilsack.  One hundred-fifteen school districts needed a waiver from this requirement this school year

o Forty school districts currently do not have a “qualified” guidance counselor.  “Qualified” means that the guidance counselor has a master’s degree in school counseling.  Your district may have a guidance counselor but is that person “qualified”?

o Eighty-five districts do not have a school nurse.

• Allows districts to pay the salary of the teacher librarian, guidance counselor or nurse with property taxes.

o This is the first time that schools will be allowed to pay for salaries with property taxes.

o The district applies to the School Budget Review Committee for the property taxing authority to pay the librarian, counselor and/or nurse.

o The district may pay for this staff year after year from property taxes. 

• Pilot career ladder projects are to be established in eight districts. The re is no full scale implementation of the career ladder already in current law.  There is no guarantee of better teaching. What are our students getting for $70 million?

• Raises minimum beginning teacher salary to from $25,500 to $26,500.

• Creates an Administrator Quality program including administrator performance standards, required evaluation and professional development.  Your school boards should be concerned about losing the at-will status of their superintendents and principals.  Your district could do these ‘best practices” without codifying them.

• Expands the Teacher Quality pay plan to cover more AEA staff at a cost of $3.8 million.

• Funds Teacher Academies at $1.85 million.  These are summer intensive professional development opportunities

(Contact: Ann McCarthy, 1-3015)

Human Resources

National Study Shows Flu Pandemic Would Have Devastating Impact on Iowa’s Economy

A national study of the impact of a severe pandemic flu outbreak shows that Iowa’s economy would lose almost 6 percent of the state’s annual gross domestic product.

The study was done by the Trust for America’s Health as part of the Pandemic Preparedness Initiative. The Trust created a model to simulate a pandemic event and determine its impact on the economies of the states. The simulation assumed a pandemic event on the scale of the 1918 pandemic, resulting in 90 million Americans becoming ill and 2.2 million Americans dying.

For Iowa, the model projects that 878,000 of the state’s nearly 3 million citizens will contract the flu. Twenty-six thousand Iowans are expected to lose their lives in a pandemic of this magnitude.

The impact on Iowa’s economy of a 1918-like pandemic would be severe. The model shows Iowa would have losses of $6.7 billion in state gross domestic product (GDP). That would represent a loss of 5.9 percent of the state’s GDP. The Trust ranked the projected impact on the states. Iowa would have the ninth highest loss of GDP in a pandemic event.

The hardest hit industries according to the report would be manufacturing and transportation. The GDP projected loss may be low, as the study assumes no demand loss in a number of Iowa industries like information, real estate, and professional services. It is highly likely that there will be less spending in these areas as well.

The Trust’s report recommends a number of areas that businesses and community groups need to prepare for a pandemic event, with the focus being on how they can sustain essential operating functions. The Trust recommends examining:

• Medical and family leave options;

• Expansion of telecommuting opportunities;

• Assess infection control procedures in the workplace;

• Contingency plans for maintaining the delivery of goods and services in a pandemic; and

• Updating workforce communication plans.

With this study’s results, the question of the state’s preparedness again becomes an issue. Does Iowa have a plan and the resources to meet the needs of its citizens when a pandemic flu event occurs? More importantly, does the new administration understand the need for being prepared?

(Contact: Brad Trow, 1-3471)

Judiciary

Judiciary Committee Action

The following bills are on the agenda to be considered this week in the Judiciary Committee:

SF 175 – Relating to the disposition of seized property in a criminal proceeding

This bill eliminates the involvement of the prosecuting attorney in sending a notice to persons with possible ownership interest in seized property. Current law permits the seizing agency or the prosecuting attorney to send out claim notices.

If the value of the seized property is less than $500, the claim notice shall be sent by regular mail, and if the property is not claimed within 30 days, the property shall be deemed abandoned and the seizing agency shall become the owner and can dispose of it in any reasonable manner.

If the value of the seized property is equal to or greater than $500, the claim notice shall be sent by certified mail and if not collected within 30 days, the property is considered forfeited and forfeiture proceedings shall be initiated pursuant to Code Chapter 809A. If forfeiture proceedings are not ordered by the court, the seizing agency shall become the owner of the property and may dispose of it in any reasonable manner.

SF 264 – Relating to grandparent and great-grandparent visitation

This bill will replace current provisions by allowing a great grandparent or grandparents of a minor child to petition the court for visitation. The court is required to consider a fit parent’s objection to granting visitation, and there is a rebuttable presumption that a fit parent’s decision to deny visitation to a grandparent or great-grandparent is in the best interest of the child.

SF 373 – Relating to post-secondary education

The bill provides that a parent may be ordered to provide a post-secondary education subsidy to a child whether or not the parents of the child were married to one another.

SF 505 – Relating to civil liability for damages relating to the use of an automated external defibrillator in sudden cardiac arrest emergencies

This bill relates to civil liability for damages related to the use of an automated external defibrillator in sudden cardiac arrest emergencies.

The bill provides that certain persons or entities, who in good faith render emergency care or assistance relating to the preparation for and response to a sudden cardiac arrest emergency shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions occurring at the place of an emergency or accident or while such persons are in transit to or from the emergency or accident or while such persons are at or being moved to or from an emergency shelter, unless such acts or omissions constitute recklessness or willful and wanton misconduct.

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Labor

Prevailing Wage – House File 810

The federal Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects.

The Davis-Bacon Act was amended in 1935 to ensure that contractors bidding on public works projects would not lower wages in order achieve a lower bid, and to permit government agencies, which were required to accept the lowest bids, to employ contractors who paid a fair wage.

The Act was modified again in 1964 to include fringe benefits in the calculation of prevailing wages.

In 1994, the Davis-Bacon act was amended so that the construction, renovation or repair of buildings used by Head Start programs are also subject to the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act.

Currently, 32 states have prevailing wage laws.

House File 810 requires a contractor to pay workers the same hourly wage plus fringe benefits for a public improvement costing more than $25,000 as the contractor would pay workers for a private construction or improvement project.

This bill requires the wage rates that the workers must be paid shall also include benefits such as medical care, life insurance, overtime pay, and vacation and holiday pay.

House File 810 applies to any public improvement that receives money from a public body and includes most types of public improvements, from construction to road maintenance to painting to hauling. Additionally, the bill includes other public improvement projects including:

▪ Cleaning of grounds or structures

▪ Erection of scaffolding

▪ Maintenance, repair, assembly, or disassembly of equipment

▪ Testing of materials

▪ Hauling of refuse from a site to an outside disposal location

(Contact: Mary Earnhardt, 1-3298)

Local Government

Local Government Bills on the Move

Senate File 208 - Personally Identifiable Information - This bill creased a new section of the Code relating to information submitted to the county recorder. The bill:

• Extends the definition of “personally identifiable information” to include a Social Security number AND a person’s checking, savings or share account number and credit, debit or charge card number.

• A person who enters such information on a record and then files the record with the county recorder is liable for damages up to $500.

• This section does not apply to federal tax lien, a military separation or discharge record, or a death certificate.

Senate File 336 - Civil Service Commission – Current law only allows civil service commissions in cities of over 100,000 population. This bill lowers that to a population of 70,000. The commission is voluntary.

Senate File 354 - Overpayments – This bill allows a county to keep overpayments of $5 or less unless the person requests reimbursement.

Senate File 444 - COGS - This bill splits the current Area 15 regional planning commission into two COGS. The Area 15 COG will contain Davis, Jefferson, Keokuk, Mahaska, Van Buren and Wapello counties. Four current Area 15 COG counties would form their own new “Chariton Valley Council of Governments”.

(Contact: Ann McCarthy, 1-3015)

Natural Resources

Committee Action

The following bills passed out of the Natural Resources Committee this week. The committee expects to meet only once more during the 2007 session.

SF 48 – Concerning the limitation of actions for prosecution of violations under certain statutes administered by the natural resource commission.

Prosecution for a simple misdemeanor violation of Code Chapters 481A (Wildlife Conservation), 842 (Commercial Fishing), 483A (Fishing And Hunting License, Contraband, And Guns), 484A (Migratory Game Birds), 484B (Hunting Preserves) or 484C (Preserve Whitetail), shall by commenced within three years of the violation.

If a person leaves the state after committing such a violation, prosecution for the violation may be commenced within three years after the person returns to the state AND the period during which the person charged was not publicly residing in the state does not count as part of the three-year limitations period. Currently, they only have one year to prosecute.

SF 477 – An Act authorizing the issuance of additional special nonresident deer hunting licenses.

This bill, which authorizes the issuance of up to 75 (instead of 25) special nonresident deer hunting licenses for allocation by the majority of a committee consisting of the majority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Director of the Department of Economic Development, is designed to promote the state and its natural resources to nonresident guests and dignitaries.

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Public Safety

House Delays Debate on House File 365, Reserve Peace Officer Training Bill

On the House calendar for the fifth consecutive week, the House once again did not debate House File 365, which changes the training and instruction requirements for reserve peace officers.

The bill itself is not controversial. The first section changes the definition of “minimum training course” to mean a curriculum of basic training requirements developed by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA), not including weapons training. Currently in the Iowa Code, “minimum training course” was defined as “a curriculum of 150 hours of training and instruction, including weapons training”.

The second section strikes the training standards listed in the Code and replaces them with yet-to-be-decided rules to be promulgated by the ILEA. The third section clarifies that the ILEA can provide instruction to reserve peace officers. It does not change the Code with regard to the training and instruction being provided by the community colleges and other entities.

The final section of the bill gives the director of the ILEA the ability to promulgate the rules for this chapter of the Code. The first draft of the rules by ILEA is what made this bill controversial. Because of the controversial rules, members of the majority have been hearing from local law enforcement officials and are now wary of voting for it.

It is not known if the majority party intends to take up the bill. Since the Senate Judiciary Committee has kicked out a companion bill (Senate File 110), the bill remains eligible for debate until the end of session.

(Contact: Lon Anderson, 1-5184)

State Government

House Votes to Allow High School Students to Serve on Election Boards

The House passed HF 618, which allows certain high school students to serve on election boards, on March 26 by a vote of 85-14.

A county auditor may appoint a high school student to serve as a precinct election board member if the student meets the specific qualifications. Those qualifications include:

• United States citizen

• Junior or senior that is at least 17 years of age and is in good standing enrolled in a private or public school

• Must pass the no pass-no play requirements that says that you may not fail a class and still serve on the election board

• Written approval of the principal

• Written approval of the parents

• Completed the training course

• Meet all other qualifications required of the board

The bill also requires no more than one student precinct election board member may serve on the precinct board. In addition, before serving in partisan elections, the student must submit in writing with which party the student is affiliated.

An amendment was adopted which says a student who serves on an election board can not receive extra credit for serving on the election board.

Another amendment that was adopted also requires the county auditor to submit a report within 14 days of the election to the school. The report shall include the name of the student, where they served, when they served and, any other information the county auditor feels is important or the school requests.

Committee to Consider Bill that Regulates Gubernatorial Inauguration Funding

SF 482 establishes new language that provides for the gubernatorial inauguration contribution reporting requirements, limits, and penalties. Currently there are no regulations.

Under the bill, the Governor-elect is required to designate an inaugural treasurer. The name and contact information of the inaugural treasurer shall be provided to the Ethics and Campaign Disclosure board within a certain amount of time. All contributions and expenditures shall flow through the inaugural treasurer. The inaugural treasurer shall file a report on March 15 and May 15. The bill lays out what information shall be contained in the report.

This bill also limits contributions to no more than $25,000. According to a Des Moines Register news story four Iowa businesses or interest groups donated $50,000 each: Kirke Financial Services, MidAmerican Energy, Iowa Farm Bureau and Principal Financial Group. Additionally, nine companies gave $25,000. The bill also makes it clear that inaugural contributions may not be used for personal use.

Before filing a termination report all residual funds shall be donated to a charitable organization. This bill also puts in place certain penalties.

Bill Action

The State Government Committee took action on one bill this week:

SF 42, which updated campaign finance laws, passed 19-0.

The House took action on eight bills this week:

HF 413, which requires campaign finance reports to be filed electronically, passed 71-26.

HF 580, which requires certain reports be filed regarding electioneering activities, passed 83-15.

HF 618, which allows certain high school students to serve on election boards, passed 85-14.

HF 650, which requires beer kegs to have identification tags, passed 88-10.

HF 844, which allows affidavit envelopes to be opened ahead of time, passed 99-0.

HF 848, which makes updates to election laws requested by the auditors, passed 99-0.

HF 849, which is the DAS omnibus bill, passed 97-0.

HF 851 increases the threshold at which purchases may be made by the ICN before it needs legislative approval. It passed 97-2.

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

Transportation

Infrastructure Budget Bill Not Expected Until After REC Meets

One of the appropriations bills that we have not seen yet is the Infrastructure appropriations bill. The infrastructure appropriations bill is expected to appropriate money from Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF), Vertical Infrastructure Fund (VIF), and Endowment for Iowa’s Health Restricted Capitals Fund (RCF2), and the Technology Reinvestment Fund (TRF).

This bill is usually one of the last bills introduced and moved through the process because the majority party traditionally waits until the Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) meets in the spring before introducing their bill. The REC is scheduled to meet on April 6. The funds in the Infrastructure bill do not have to follow the 99% expenditure limitation; therefore, waiting until the REC meeting is a benefit because the numbers are more accurate and the amount of revenue generated usually increases.

One thing that is expected to be included in the House and Senate Democrat’s bill is a $5.0 million notwithstanding item that sends the money to the Environment First Fund. Under Republican control, we were able to cap that at $35.0 million. Democrats chose to take money from RIIF to increase the fund to $40.0 million.

The Governor’s Infrastructure bill, HSB 260, has been introduced. In addition to the funds mentioned above, the Governor’s bill also appropriates funding from the Environment First Fund (EFF). This has been tradition. However, the Democrats chose to move that fund to the Ag and Natural Resources budget subcommittee this year.

Some of the noteworthy items included in the Governor’s budget include:

• $7.04 million for the Toledo Power House – The Legislature previously appropriated $2.7 million for this project. The estimates received in July 2006 dramatically increased the cost of the project and this appropriation covers the difference.

• $4.0 million for asbestos removal in the Workforce Development Building – The department asked for $1.0 million for this project. It is unclear why they Governor’s office increased the appropriation.

• $200,000 for a worker’s monument to be located on Capitol grounds – No department recommended this appropriation. It is not known where this will be located or why it is needed.

• $10.6 million for Targeted Bioscience Industries Infrastructure – This new funding is for an initiative involving the Bioscience Alliance of Iowa, the Iowa Advanced Manufacturing Council, and the Small Business Advisory Council.

• $10 million for the Iowa Center for Regenerative Medicine – This funding is for a proposed cloning center at the University for Iowa to benefit stem cell research. The Governor is also recommending a $2.5 supplemental appropriation for FY 2007 from the General Fund.

Bill Action

The House took action on two Transportation bills this week:

HF 559, the passenger rail compact, passed 87-8.

SF 358, the pre-licensing and continued education requirements for used car dealers, passed 79-19.

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

Veterans Affairs

House Committee to Consider Codifying the Home Buyers Program

The Veterans Affairs Committee is expected to consider sometime in the next week SF 407, which codifies the Veterans Home Buyers Program.

The Veterans Home Buyers program was initially established in 2005 when excess veterans funding was reallocated to this new program. In 2005, it was thought that this would be a one-time program. However, the program proved to be very successful and, in 2006 and 2007, the Legislature passed supplemental appropriations for the program. Since the program has proved it is not a one-time thing, this language codifies the program.

The Military Service Member Home Ownership Assistance Program assists with home purchases for current and former military service members who are serving or have served on active duty in support of the War on Terror. The program helps qualified individuals purchase a home through dollar-for-dollar matching grants of up to $5,000. Under the bill, the program is administered by the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) and the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). Currently, the program is being administered by IFA and the Iowa National Guard.

The program is open to current and former military service members if the following requirements are met:

• Must have served on active duty for at least 90 days cumulative, other than training, between September 11, 2001 and June 30, 2008, or other period designated by law, as a member of the National Guard, Reserve or Regular Component of the Armed Forces of the United States in support of the War on Terror.

• Must be a resident of the State of Iowa. IFA has interpreted the residency requirement in such a way that service members who have bought, or who are in the process of buying a primary residence in Iowa are deemed to be residents of Iowa for purposes of the program.

• In the event an eligible member is deceased, the surviving spouse of the eligible member shall be eligible for assistance under the program, subject to the surviving spouse meeting the program’s eligibility requirements other than the military service requirement.

Implementation of the program shall be limited to the extent of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available for purposes of the program.

As mentioned above, this is a very successful program. In 2006, a total of 410 individuals in 71 counties received grants. Most of the individuals were members of the Army (304); however, 47 recipients were members of the Air Force, 42 recipients were members of the Marines, and 25 recipients were members of the Navy. Also, 164 of the recipients were E4s or E5s.

Also, on February 14, the Governor signed the supplemental appropriations bill that provided additional money for the program. The grants were awarded soon thereafter. Since February 14, 69 grants have been awarded for a total commitment of $304,543. This has resulted in six service members moving from out-of-state into Iowa.

Bill Action

The House took action on one bill this week:

HF 767 expands the injured veterans program to include those Iowa National Guard members who are not residents of the state of Iowa. It passed 97-0.

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

Ways and Means

Earned Income Tax Credit

On Thursday, March 22, the House Ways and Means Committee unanimously approved changing the Iowa Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). House File 883 increases the Iowa EITC to 7% of the federal EITC and makes the credit refundable.

Iowa income tax provisions are rooted in federal tax law and many of the credits that are allowed to taxpayers under federal law are allowed on Iowa tax returns as a percentage. Under current state law, the EITC is a nonrefundable state credit is allowed against any Iowa income tax at the rate of 6.5 percent of the federal EITC.

The federal EITC is a refundable income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of Social Security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit (for federal tax purposes only).

A taxpayer may be eligible for the EITC based on the following general requirements:

• The taxpayer earned less than $12,120 ($14,120 if married filing jointly) and does not have an any qualifying children

• The taxpayer earned less than $32,001 ($34,001 if married filing jointly) and has one qualifying child

• The taxpayer earned less than $36,348 ($38,348 if married filing jointly) and has more than one qualifying child

In addition a taxpayer must meet a few basic rules:

• Must have a valid Social Security Number

• Must have earned income from employment or from self-employment.

• Filing status cannot be married, filing separately.

• Must be a U.S. citizen or resident alien all year, or a nonresident alien married to a U.S. citizen or resident alien and filing a joint return.

• Cannot be a qualifying child of another person.

• If the taxpayer does not have a qualifying child, they must:

- Be age 25 but under 65 at the end of the year,

- Live in the United States for more than half the year, and

- Not qualify as a dependent of another person

- Cannot file Form 2555 or 2555-EZ (related to foreign earn income)

Additionally, members of the military can elect to include their nontaxable combat pay in earned income for the earned income credit.

To receive the credit, taxpayers must file a tax return, even if they did not earn enough money to be obligated to file a tax return.

The EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits. In most cases, EITC payments will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, low-income housing or most Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments.

The federal EITC can be worth up to $4,500 for tax year 2006.

Iowa Taxpayers Have Free e-File Options for Income Tax

Qualifying taxpayers have free e-file options on the Iowa Department of Revenue’s website.

There are three companies that allow free e-filing for both federal and Iowa income taxes under certain conditions:

▪ – if the individual’s adjusted gross income is $30,000 or less.

▪ – if the individual is 25 years old or younger OR 65 years old or older OR active military personnel OR adjusted gross income is $10,000 or less OR qualifies for the Earned Income Tax Credit.

▪ Intuit Tax Freedom – if the individual qualifies for the Earned Income Tax Credit OR Adjusted Gross Income is $27,000 or less OR active duty military with a military W2 and Adjusted Gross Income of $52,000 or less.

Those who don't meet the conditions can choose to e-file both for as little as $10.

Iowa TeleFile, a free service, is available again this year. To find out if you qualify to use Iowa TeleFile, check your Iowa income tax booklet if you received one, or go to the department's Web site.

You may also request an Iowa TeleFile worksheet and personal identification number by contacting the department's e-File Service Unit.

Iowa Department of Revenue Website:

Iowa Department of Revenue e-File Service Unit: 515-281-8453 or toll free at 1-866-503-3453, or by e-mail at idrefile@.

(Contact: Mary Earnhardt, 1-3298)

House Republican Talking Points

Runaway Spending and Big Tax Increases

• Democrats released the General Fund balance sheet last week which details all tax and spending increases. It amounts to a 10 percent increase in spending and $144 million in tax increases.

• The total increase in the FY 08 general fund budget is $528 million, or 10 percent above the budget enacted last session.

• Even when the $62 million in supplemental appropriations are factored into the FY 07 budget, the increase for FY 08 is $467 million, or 8.7 percent compared to last year.

• The Democrats still plan to raise taxes by $144 million.

• This level of spending increase is not sustainable in future fiscal years without significant tax increases.

• Democrats plan to offer amnesty to tax cheats. Iowans who have been working hard, playing by rules and paying their taxes get socked with $144 million in tax increases, while Iowans who have been breaking the rules and cheating the system, get a free ride.

Top spending priority is union salaries

• Democrats plan to spend $107 million on union salary increases.

• The $107 million represents the largest increase in the budget this year. That means the top spending priority for the new Democrat majority is not for teachers, health care or economic development. It is to pay back the state employees union.

Democrats pulled a fast one on the cigarette tax increase

• After approving SF 128, Democrats insisted the first $127.6 million of increased tax revenue flowed into the new Health Care Trust Fund ostensibly to fund health care priorities. If the Democrats own balance sheet is truthful, 100 percent of the new revenue is being deposited into the general fund NOT into the Health Care Trust Fund.

• The bottom line is that all cigarette tax revenue is going to the general fund for new spending.

Raiding the Senior Living Trust Fund

• The Democrats have a balance of $142 million in the Senior Living Trust Fund (SLTF) in FY 08. This is $55 million less than the Governor’s recommendation. Also, they did not reveal how much they are taking back out of the SLTF to fund the Medicaid budget in FY 08. It is likely they will use at least $74.8 million (the Governor’s recommendation), meaning that if the revenue does not continue to exceed the REC expectations, the SLTF could be completely drained in FY 09.

Between raising taxes, approving an unsustainable rate of spending growth and raiding trust funds, the budget blueprint put forth by the Democrats is fiscally reckless.

Fair Share

SF 413 forces non-union public employees - like teachers- to pay union dues. The only way for public employees to avoid paying union dues is to quit their jobs.

The effect of SF 413 is the same as a direct repeal of the Right to Work law.

The so-called “Fair Share” legislation is not fair. It is forced unionism.

There is nothing fair about forcing individuals to pay dues to a union or an organization they do not choose to belong.

There are amendments to SF 413 which, among other things, would do the following:

• Relieve public employee unions of the burden of representing non-union employees and allow them to simply represent their members.

• Require an annual audit and public reporting requirements to disclose how the unions are spending the cash raised from fair share fees.

• Allow a religious exemption for public employees who have a religious objection to joining employee organizations. Other states, like Ohio for example, have this in Code.

• Make the bullying and harassment of public employees who do not want to join the union illegal.

• Prevents fair share fees from being used for any political effort or lobbying effort germane or not germane to collective bargaining.

• Makes it illegal for unions to recruit and/or sign up illegal aliens.

• Requires that any union making political contributions to Iowa political campaigns certify that all individuals paying dues aer American citizens.

• Allows non-union employees who are forced to pay fair share fees the right to view and examine union finances related to the fair share fees.

• Replaces all references to “fair share” in the bill to “forced union”.

• Allows teachers to be represented by an organization other than ISEA.

• Amends the scope of negotiations section of the code to allow employers and unions to collective bargain diversity policies, harassment policies, discipline policies, promotion procedures.

• Requires the union to set the fair share fee based on actual historical data instead of the whims of union leadership.

On Sunday Feb. 4 the Sioux City Journal nailed what the Democrat’s plan is about: “Although the legislation technically would not repeal Iowa’s Right to Work law, its essential effect would be the same – forced unionism of workers.”

On Tuesday Jan. 30 the Wall Street Journal called the Democrat’s effort to gut Right to Work the “Iowa Emigration Act”.

The Journal stated “If the Iowa Legislature wanted to chase jobs and employers out of the state, they couldn’t come up with a better plan than undermining right to work.”

Also according to the Journal:

“Right to work laws are strongly correlated with faster growth in jobs and personal income.”

“A recent survey by the National Right to Work Institute found that, between 1986 and 2006, 11 right-to-work states have added 104,000 auto manufacturing jobs, a 63% increase. The non right-to-work states lost 130,000 auto jobs, or 15% over the same period.”

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register noted in his column on Jan. 30 that,:

“…lawyers and others trying to craft the legislation to enact it are discovering that they can't do it without gutting part of the right-to-work law. (That law also says it's illegal to collect "dues, charges, fees, contributions, fines or assessments to any labor union, labor association or labor organization" as a condition of employment.)

Labor is saying, "You promised fair share." Democratic legislators are saying, "You didn't tell us we'd have to gut the right-to-work law to do it." Labor replies: "So what's wrong with that?"

On February 13th the Clinton Herald wrote: “Perhaps the words Fair Share don’t scare you yet – but they should.”

On February 13th, the Cedar Rapids Gazette wrote: “The “fair” aspect of the legislation seems to be more about “fare,” inasmuch as the measure has the potential to dump millions of dollars into unions, which have seen their ranks decline in recent years.”

The Gazette summarized it’s position: “As much as proponents would like to position the debate about winning one for the little guy, it is not. This issue is more fundamental than a classic labor-business clash. It is about the importance of individuals to make choices about where they work, and whether they want to be represented by a union. Being forced to do so is an infringement on the basic rights Iowans cherish.”

On February 10th the Mason City Globe-Gazette wrote: “To some it looks like a classic quid pro quo. Unions have been the most fervent backs of the Democratic Party and are licking their chops thinking now the Democrats control both house of the Legislature and the governor’s office in Iowa, it’s time for some payback that would boost union membership rates, which have been declining.”

The Globe-Gazette went on to write: “We’d like to see the issue go away. Fair share could be a real detriment to the state’s ability to attract new businesses. Various reports show some businesses won’t even consider locating in non-right to work states. But beyond that, fair share simply isn’t fair.”

On Febuary 13 the Burlington Hawkeye wrote: “In addition to bargaining contracts, unions are very politically and socially active. It’s simply wrong for them to compel someone to financially support an organization in which they have philosophical differences.

Unions sruggling to retain and grow membership should look inside themselves and create a marketing strategy to swell their ranks. They have something to sell to a new employee, and should put their expertise at that endeavor.”

On February 18th, the Des Moines Register wrote, “It is not exactly a repeal of Iowa’s right to work law, but it would have the same effect on businesses looking at Iowa.

-----------------------

Inside This Issue:

Unions Big Winners in Salary Bill 1

Livestock Regulatory Measure 2

Statewide Cable Franchises 4

Power Fund Keeps Changing 5

Preschool Bill Talking Points 6

Teacher Pay Bill on the Move 7

Flu Pandemic 8

Judiciary Update 9

Prevailing Wage Bill Still Alive 10

Local Government Update 11 Peace Officers Bill Delayed 12

High School Students Running Election 13

REC Delays RIIF Bill Release 14

Veterans Home Buyers Program 15

Earned Income Tax Credit 16

Free e-File Options for Income Tax 17

House Republican Talking Points 18

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download